Another occurance in Venom's series that was uncalled for

Here's a sugary Popverse interview with Spider-Man editor Nick Lowe and writer Joe Kelly about one more thing they've done in Venom #256 (who knew any ongoing they prepared for that character could've gone so long by now?), which was to terminate the Paul Rabin character they shoehorned into the Spidey franchise just to serve as a paramour for Mary Jane Watson at the expense of Peter Parker:

After you have a bad break-up, whoever your ex ends up with next might get a little side-eye from you — for one reason or another. Three years ago in comics, Mary Jane Watson and Peter Parker broke up, and the model-turned-Venom MJ has since found someone new in her life in the recently introduced Paul Rabin. This dovetailed into Mary Jane getting stories of her own, leveling up when she became the latest host of Venom.

But all the while, a certain segment of fans has had an unreserved scorn for Paul Rabin — at best, he is not a good fit to be the romantic partner of Mary Jane, and, at worst, he is an ill-fitting 'plot device' to keep MJ out of the magnetism that is her on-again, off-again romance with one-time husband, Peter Parker. But in April 1's Venom #256, the Paul Rabin haters got their wish as he was written out of Mary Jane's Venom series with a surprise (and surprisingly clear) death at the hands of the serial killer supervillain Torment as part of the recent 'Death Spiral' crossover event with the Amazing Spider-Man title.

Ahem. I may not like that C.B. Cebulski and company chose to do this for the sake of keeping Spidey and MJ apart, but that doesn't mean I support "projection" to the point of seeing the character put to death at the hands of the villain I assume was meant to be MJ's father. But don't be surprised if these propagandists have no qualms about making fandom look that bad they'd view a murder as a great thing just because it supposedly paves the way for reuniting MJ and Peter.

After a few weeks for fans to unpack it and to avoid spoilers, we spoke with Paul Rabin co-creator Joe Kelly (writer of Amazing Spider-Man), and Spider-Man group editor Nick Lowe to talk about it. Apparently, the idea to kill Paul Rabin originally came up as a way to add to the death total of 'Death Spiral,' but in it, they found a deeper story — and finale — for the Paul Rabin era.

"There were some pillars of the story that were there from the beginning," Kelly tells Popverse. "Once we were like, 'body count, body count,' we wondered who we were taking off the board. I don't remember if it was Al [Ewing] specifically who said it, and we were all like, 'Yeah, it's kind of a good moment.'"

"I think it may have been [Venom editor] Jordan White who suggested it, and then Al thought of the timing, or something like that," Lowe adds. "And we all were talking about how it's got to happen just to hurt the most, and to have the most complex emotional toll for all of it."

"Especially if he goes out trying to do something good," adds Kelly.

So that's what this whole story was about - mass death trails. Just another reminder what's gone wrong with the modern era, where horror supplants comedy and romance. As for "doing something good" before being sent to the great reward, unfortunately, it's too late to impress upon anybody now with that kind of angle, especially when the stories they've concocted are so jaw-droppingly contrived and forced. Besides, the chances they'll actually reunite Peter and MJ as a married couple at this point are very low.

Since Paul Rabin's debut in 2022's Amazing Spider-Man #1, and a four-plus-year romance with Mary Jane, all the while in the orbit of her ex, Peter Parker, it seems almost every Spider-Man and Venom comics reader had an opinion on the character. While some characters find it hard to gain traction with fans, Paul Rabin was what pro wrestling fans would call a heat magnet; readers either loved him or hated him.

For Nick Lowe, who has spent 25+ years inside Marvel Comics editorial and seen (and in many cases been a part of) several superhero stories that provoked this kind of reaction, he knew it was there - and that there would be a triumphant release of emotion for the 'Paul haters' at this moment.

"We were not shocked in any way by the reaction," Lowe says. "If anything, the Paul haters out there... being vocal is not their problem. The Paul supporters have also been vocal. They're not as large as one might expect the population, and much of it was tongue in cheek, but we knew it would be a big moment and get a big reaction from a good portion of the fandom."

"I don't really look at these things, but I expected it," Kelly adds. "The little birds out there tell me it was quite a day for a certain corner of the internet."

That's exactly the problem. They don't make any distinction between good or bad responses, what matters to them is if the audience pays any attention at all. Which beggars the query: doesn't merit matter? Alas, not to such PC advocates. Interesting they bring up how long Lowe's worked for Marvel, because one could say he came about at the beginning of the end for whatever was left of Marvel's merit, and it wouldn't be a shock if he were a prime choice of Joe Quesada to serve as one of the editors for writers like J. Michael Straczynski, who of course turned out some of the shoddiest Spidey stories, right down to the whole Sins Past debacle.

Before you ask if Mary Jane and Peter Parker will end up back together, let's not get ahead of ourselves. There's a Spider-Man family mystery happening, and, oh yeah, a landmark Amazing Spider-Man #1000 to come.

What a shock. As noted before, of course nobody expects a serious reunion under such disgraceful frauds, one more reason why there's no longer any ability to celebrate a landmark 1000th issue. A similar point could be made about Superman and Batman's 1000th landmarks. And all the while, the publishers are still nailed on the whole notion that serial fiction like this can only be published as pamphlets, and never solely as paperbacks/hardcovers.

And if there's something else about the late Gerry Conway worth noting, it's that it's a terrible shame that, among the things he did a 360 degree on in the past decade or more, he also threw MJ under the bus, and all that after he'd gone to all the trouble of killing Gwen Stacy in 1973 just to prepare the groundswork for pairing up Peter and MJ as a couple. Conway, to my knowledge, never panned Quesada and company for where they took everything with Sins Past and One More/Brand New Day, and one could reasonably ask, why would the guy want to take all the paths he did back in the Bronze Age if he didn't have any respect for the characters, as his refusal to speak against the modern management suggests? I realize Conway wasn't the only one who let down entire fandoms with his PC positions; there's plenty more. But that's why we're at such an abyss today, and it's not bound to improve anytime soon.

An anime localization that was adapted to live action winds up on TV streaming instead of theaters

If anybody's familiar with the Voltron cartoon of the early 80s, they surely know that it's actually a localization and combination of 2 anime maxi-series from 1981-82, Beast King GoLion and Armored Fleet Dairugger XV, which, much like several other anime localizations up to the turn of the century, underwent heavy censorship just because the localizers didn't have the courage to market for adults, even as I admit there's at least one violent scene in the former that was disturbingly jarring for its time.

Now, as I've been aware for a few years, a live action film adaptation of the western Voltron localization was developed, and looks like its completed, but as Decider now announces, it won't be released theatrically, and is only going to streaming, or perhaps video, as may have been the custom up to the turn of the last century:

Fans of Voltron anxiously awaiting the release of the upcoming live-action remake will not be heading to theaters to watch it.

Amazon MGM Studios’ live-action remake of the ’80s animated series will head straight to streaming on Prime Video upon its release, Collider reports. According to the outlet, the move was announced by the studio on Monday (May 11). The exact release date has yet to be announced. [...]

Voltron: Defender of the Universe, which aired from 1984 until 1985, followed “five lion robots and their pilots as they fight the evil forces of King Zarkon and Prince Lotor,” per IMDb. Among those in the voice cast were Peter Cullen, Michael Bell, Jack Angel, Neil Ross, Lennie Weinrib, and B.J. Ward.

Notice though, that they don't seem to mention the Japanese origins? What's up with that? Just because the twosome may not have been the most popular series in Japan at the time, as this website notes (and this one), they have to leave that all out? Make what you will of what they're adapting, but that's no excuse to conceal the origins of the 2 cartoons combined into one, which I think was meant to provide a sufficient amount of episodes so that networks would buy it according to expected quotas for marketing at the time, which was something like 80 parts.

But as this news suggests, the new live action movie may not be the exciting adventure they're making it out to be, otherwise it probably would've gone to theaters more easily. Or, they may have estimated the finished product will not do well enough theatrically to justify its release there. And if this news from 5 years ago said anything, the Japanese audience would possibly have passed on it, and surely wouldn't be pleased if they knew a lot of USA press sources were failing to acknowledge the country of origin both anime series came from. That's the reason this may not be the big event some were hoping it'd be.

And lest we forget, the Saint Seiya adaptation from 3 years ago was certainly a dud.

2 old interviews regarding the JSA

I found 2 interviews, one with the overrated David Goyer and the other with the late Len Strazewski, from an old Geocities JSA fansite that's now archived. First, here's the interview with Goyer:

Q2. How did you choose what storyline to start the new series with? Was it always intended to deal with the death of Sandman, and the rebirth of Dr Fate, or were there other ideas?

We always intended to begin the new book with the death of Wesley Dodds, but originally, this was going to be tied into a story involving the old Paul Kirk Manhunter clones. We shelved that (we'll be bringing it back later on) and decided to go for something much more epic -- the birth of a new Dr. Fate.

And that new Dr. Fate was Golden Age Hawkman and Hawkgirl's son Hector Hall, aka the Silver Scarab, who about 5 years later, was put back in the grave along with Lyta Hall/Fury, by none other than Geoff Johns himself when he took up the writing chores almost entirely solo. So what was the whole point of bringing them back into the fold? And what's so wrong with Kent Nelson and Inza Nelson that they wouldn't reverse their atrocious fate in Zero Hour?

That aside, while it may be one thing to write up a demise for Dodds, the way he was depicted committing suicide to prevent a hefty villain from possibly assaulting him to get more information out of him was disgraceful and forced, as were the other deaths depicted early in the series' run. The problem with how they did it is that they seem to think these other characters were some sort of a burden with no storytelling value to build around, and in the end, instead of just quietly letting them be dropped into limbo, they can only think of putting them to death through murder. Even suicide's very appalling. Yet they resort almost exclusively to such fates instead of death by natural causes and auto accidents, just to show how uncreative they actually are.

Q5. How has the reaction to the new JSA comic been in the DC offices? Positive?

Generally, DC has been very happy with the book. Sales are quite good and they like the way the fans have been responding. They've given us fairly free rein to do what we want.

Q6. What did you think of the 1992 JSA series by Len Strazewski and the late Mike Parobeck?

I enjoyed the short-lived '92 JSA series, but I thought it lingered a bit too much in the past, recycling the same (quite small) JSA rogues gallery, etc.

That was one of the reasons we introduced Mordru and (in issue #6) Black Adam. Later on, we will see a new Injustice Society. We wanted to expand the JSA's rogues gallery.

Oh, so here he's stealthily putting down Strazewski's work, which was cut short by editor Mike Carlin, yet when somebody like Goyer comes along, suddenly there's no complaints. Funny Goyer says Strazewski's work lingered in the past too much, when Goyer/Johns/Robinson's JSA wasn't all that different, despite what they say. And a big problem was how it didn't built legitimately or organically, based on how it stuck with the status quo set by Zero Hout, and there were at least 3-4 series at the time introducing new characters to replace the older ones, including how Oliver Queen was replaced as Green Arrow by a newly created son. In retrospect, none of the replacements aged well.

Q8. Why did you decide to explore the return of a new Dr Fate, and not the return of another JSAer, for e.g, a new Hawkman, new Spectre or new Sandman?

We decided to bring Dr. Fate back because the Spectre issue was already being dealt with in Day of Judgement.

Hawkman was a larger issue which is being worked out as we speak -- but at the time we were pitching the series, DC still wasn't ready to give us the green light on a Hawkman resurrection.

As for Sandman -- well, Sandy needed to be in the book from the beginning for obvious reasons. And we were prohibited from actually naming a new character Sandman by Gaiman and the Vertigo folks. In the DCU, that name is exclusively Morpheus' now.

Well at least this tells something. To think that a so-called called auteur who was since accused of serious sexual abuse would have that kind of "creative control" at the expense of the flagship DCU would even have veto power over what characters could retain the Sandman codename. Of course, one can reasonably wonder how Goyer and company feel now that a guy they possibly looked up to as a genius was discovered to be quite the opposite? Do they still consider what he did with Lyta Hall throughly acceptable? I don't know, but the next part of the interview certainly makes clear what kind of woke advocate Goyer really is:

Q15. Some fans have claimed that Dr Midnite (Charles McNider) was possibly gay. What is your opinion on this situation?

It is my personal belief that McNider may very well have been gay. If we have the opportunity, we may address it one day in a story.

It's definitely eyebrow raising when somebody blurs the differences between fiction and reality that blatantly. The Golden Age Dr. Mid-Nite is a non-existant person, and like various other characters of the times, was written as a cypher, so how and why do phonies like Goyer jump to these conclusions? And who are these fans they speak of? Not me. Talk about putting words in the fanbase's mouth! Some could say the way McNider was written might make him look gay, but since he's a fictional character, there's nothing to prove, period, except for that some overrated modern writers are some of the most shameless people around. And Goyer did go pretty woke in later years to boot. And what he said about She-Hulk and did with Superman was inexcusable.

Now, here's the 2nd with Len Strazewski, and some of what he tells is far more impressive what Goyer had to say, and tells quite a bit about what went wrong at the time when the editors decided they didn't want to sell according to merit in the early 90s. This is about both the 1991 miniseries and the regular series the followed the next year:

Q4. Was this series received well by fans, and DC alike?

Fans liked the 1991 series and most DC editors ignored it.

Q5. And what about the 1992 series? What's the story behind that?

(After the 1991 series,) Brian and I proposed the 1992 continuing series set in the present. Mike Parobeck worked with me on THE FLY and also on the mini-series, and the 1992 series was created with him in mind. He designed the look of all the characters for the series.

Q6. And was the 1992 series well-received?

Fans universally loved the 1992 series and DC editors hated it because they (as a group) had convinced themselves that no one was interested in older heroic characters. History has proved them wrong, of course.

What's additonally ironic is that at least a few of the older characters who weren't slaughtered during Zero Hour were put to use in JSA, and when that occurred, no complaints were made, and the editors didn't balk at Goyer/Robinson/Johns making use of them. One could validly wonder if Strazewski wasn't PC enough for their tastes that Carlin for one had to be so petty. There is one part here that's unfortunate, however:

Q9. Regarding the lineup of the 1992 series, why were characters such as Dr Fate, Power Girl or the Star-Spangled Kid not included? Were there plans to have them appear in the future?

No special reason not to include them. Dr Fate would have shown up eventually. Power Girl and Star-Spangled Kid never interested me much.

With all due respect, it's ludicrous to say they "never interested" you much when it all depends what talent you can bring to the table and what stories you can build around them. Although, the reason why Power Girl wasn't in those 10 issues was because the disgraced Gerard Jones was holding her hostage to his repellent stories in JLA. As for Star-Spangled Kid, a creation of Jerry Siegel, the only problem there was that Roy Thomas had already put Sylvester Pemberton to death towards the end of Infinity Inc, though if anybody talented enough wanted to, there were zillions of decent ways to resurrect the guy from the grave (and Thomas himself may have once said he'd regretted what he did with Pemberton). Instead, DC editors allowed Johns to exploit the role for his female counterpart creation, Courtney Whitmore, and for some reason, if there was any character in the past decade whom editors didn't demand be given a PC costume design unlike what Starfire sadly got, it was Johns' creation, who wore a tank top outfit, begging the question, why does he get a pass while other writers/artists don't on such issues? Now, here's what Strazewski addressed in regards to the late Mike Parobeck's art:

Q12. Some fans have stated that Mike's JSA work was "too cartoony". Personally, I thought it fit perfectly, but do you have an opinion?

As noted above. He was brilliant and his style is now the most copied style in comics. Among others, DC Executive Editor Mike Carlin said Mike's work was not appropriate for super-heroes and that was one reason why the JSA series was cancelled. Carlin also said he didn't like my writing. He was mistaken.

Again, Carlin was clearly a bad omen for comicdom as an editor, if anything, and some of the later projects he worked on certainly played quite a part in draining all that made DC/Marvel work in the first place. And as I may have noted before, if older characters like Dr. Strange and Mr. Fantastic could be loved by so many readers back in the day, then it's false to say nobody liked reading about older heroes.

Q13. Have you read the current JSA series, by David Goyer and Geoff Johns? If so, what is your opinion?

I haven't read it and probably will not. It would be unfair, I think, to do so. If it is really good, I'd be jealous. If it is really bad, I'd be angry. If it was mediocre, I'd be sad. I've met the creators and they seem like bright, creative, young guys. I am sure they are doing as well as their editors allow them.

Hopefully, he didn't read it and years afterwards, I myself reevaluated whatever I did read from Goyer/Johns/Robinson and realized it was grossly overrated to begin with, and otherwise insulting to the intellect. And Johns later willingly took part in the time-altering crossover Flashpoint, which led to the New52, and in the process, erased his stories from continuity for the sake of a new one that led nowhere fast, and was eventually reversed along with at least a few other horrible mistakes like Identity Crisis. But by then, it was long too late, and the damage Johns in particular engineered on his part was truly reprehensible.

As far as I know, Carlin's never apologized for being such a hypocrite, and of course, neither have Goyer/Robinson/Johns. If Strazewski got alienated from comicdom because of all that, it's understandable. Some PC advocates for decades have really brought things down to insufferable levels, and repairing all that will take an epoch. For now, I hope Strazewski's JSA stories will be reprinted in the DC Finest archives, and as for the later JSA, that's best avoided and forgotten.

Jack Kirby gets a street named after him

Much like Stan Lee received a street named in his memory a few years ago, JNS reports the late Jack Kirby has now received a street named after him, part of a project the law firm agent Roy Schwartz and the American Jewish Historical Society worked on getting approval for:

It is no small thing to get a street in Manhattan named after you, but the creator of such timeless superheroes as Captain America, the Fantastic Four, Ant-Man, the Hulk and Iron Man received that honor on Monday, when the Lower East Side block where he was born was named “Jack Kirby Way.” [...]

“Widely recognized as the most prolific and arguably most important creator in the history of the comic book medium, Jack Kirby is also one of the most influential artists of the twentieth century,” according to a new exhibit on his life and work at Manhattan’s American Jewish Historical Society.

The exhibition, “The Jack Kirby Way: How a boy from the Lower East Side became the King of Comics,” is co-produced by the American Jewish Historical Society and the Jack Kirby Museum and Research Center. It will be on view through Nov. 30.

One of the artifacts on display in the show is the original “Captain America” comic books, issues 1 through 10. Joe Simon, who co-created the character and many more with Kirby, owned the issues on display.

The iconic first issue of “Captain America,” published in March 1941, shows the superhero punching Hitler in the face, before the United States entered the war. Many Americans had not yet come to support the idea that the Nazis needed to be vanquished.

Based on this report from Breitbart from last year, some could reasonably argue the same sadly holds true for today when it comes to the Islamic Iranian regime, in example. If Kirby and Joe Simon were alive today and created Cap in modern times, the sad but possible reality is that the Star Spangled Avenger wouldn't get the same kind of positive regard seen in the Golden Age any more than any other Marvel/DC heroes created since.

Its publication led to death threats to both men by the German-American Bund, Roy Schwartz, a board member of AJHS and the person who drove the effort to get the street co-named in Kirby’s honor, told JNS.

The police, when contacted by Kirby and Simon, refused to do anything to help, according to Schwartz.

Then-mayor Fiorello LaGuardia contacted the comic book artists and promised them personally that they would be kept safe. LaGuardia’s mother, Irene Luzzatto-Coen, was a Sephardic Jew.

And on this, it's vital to note that even today, that's not always the case in NYC, where this stuff has become a particularly sad staple ever since Zohran Mamdani was elected the 1st Muslim mayor in the Big Apple, and what he's been doing now would be hurtful to Kirby. Do the organizers of the campaign to have Jack Kirby's birthplace named after him realize that, if they don't have any concerns over what came about even before October 7, 2023 and Mamdani's election, then this whole campaign's otherwise meaningless?

As a little boy growing up in Tel Aviv, Schwartz was obsessed with comics, including Kirby’s, he told JNS.

American relatives would mail him new releases, and he learned English by reading them.

Now employed by day as “a mild-mannered chief marketing agency for a large law firm,” as he told JNS, he is the author of “Was Superman Circumcised?” and other books and essays exploring Jewish aspects of comic book history.

Schwartz was the driving force behind the labyrinthine bureaucratic process by which city agencies approved a co-named New York City street.

“There was enough red tape to circle Galactus several times,” Schwartz told JNS.

Captain America was and remains his favorite superhero, Schwartz told JNS, a few feet away from the newly-renamed street sign.

But predictably, they won't get into how, less than a decade after Kirby's passing, Marvel under Joe Quesada and Bill Jemas spared no expense taking apart much of what made Cap work in the first place, lacing the series published under the Knights imprint with anti-American propaganda, something that's continued until even recently. Equally bad is how they repeatedly tried to "replace" Steve Rogers with PC tokens. So what good does it do for Schwartz to just make the statement without bringing up how sad it is that Cap, along with tons of other Marvel/DC properties, major and minor, were effectively destroyed for the sake of woke leftist propaganda? Why, what if Mamdani had anything to do with the red tape encountered? In that case, Schwartz would be wallowing in the exact cowardice that all but victimized Kirby in his time by not showing the courage to discuss anything.

Golin, executive director of the Society for Humanistic Judaism, is a long-time, major Kirby fan.

“I love all of his work. It continues to blow me away, and he was so prolific,” he told JNS. “He is so Jewish, so if you take pride in the accomplishment of fellow Jews, then he’s someone you should know about.”

But does this guy appreciate where Marvel/DC went with Kirby's creations post-2000, including the New Gods? I seem to recall Jim Starlin wrote a miniseries called The Death of the New Gods 2 decades ago, and that wasn't exactly what Kirby got into the business to do. Such a story was a slap in the face to his legacy, just as much as what became of Cap, because if memory serves, Big Barda was meant as a tribute to Kirby's wife. I recently bought an archive of Kirby's work on the New Gods from the early 70s, and that's the kind of work that counts. I will not waste time and money on the post-2000 stories that did a terrible disservice to Kirby's efforts. Also, look who turned up as guests at the event:

Less elaborately dressed but honored with seats on the dais were Schwartz, Tom Brevoort, executive editor and senior vice president of publishing at Marvel Comics; Marvel artist and writer Jim Steranko; and former DC Comics president and publisher Paul Levitz.

While Steranko's a decent visitor, that a leftist like Brevoort, who actively defended Marvel's deconstruction of Kirby and Lee's work, would attend is disgraceful and embarrassing. Even Levitz, who fulfilled quite a bit of the same when he was a leading executive at DC (and was an apologist for Planned Parenthood), isn't exactly somebody I'd consider welcome there. Yes, I do recall he was willing to sign a petition in defense of victims of October 7, 2023, but there's still no telling if he's fully reevaluated his past mistakes, and so far, he's never publicly said so. Worse, both Marvel and DC continue to employ people throughly unsuited for the jobs, and that certainly doesn't reflect well on Brevoort, considering he still works for Marvel.

Kirby certainly is worthy of a street named after him. But not all the people involved are worthy of backing his legacy.

Even a UK collector only thinks of selling his trove through auctions and not donating to museums

The BBC covered the story of a collector from Newcastle, who's got a sizable collection that he too can only seem to think of selling through auctions now that he feels he'll have to part with it, and doesn't consider contributing to a museum any more than his USA counterparts:

Many children collected comic books, from The Topper to Roy of the Rovers, The Dandy to The Beano.

But Peter Hansen never stopped, with his haul growing into one of the country's largest private collections of British comics.

Now at the age of 70, he is starting to part with the bulk of his beloved books, which are stored in a barn in Northumberland.

Two recent auctions saw parts of his 45,000 item collection sell for more than £250,000.

"After all this time, I think it's time to let go," Hansen said.

Well boy, did he ever. To the point where he doesn't think future generations should see any of these famous publications on display at a museum. What a sad farce this is. And the biggest irony is that:

His collection became so prestigious he often loaned material to institutions such as the Cartoon Museum and the National Centre for Children's Books.

But he wouldn't fully sell or contribute his collection to them? That's what makes this auction sale all the more ridiculous. Many of the buyers at auctions likely won't read the stories, and only keep them locked away tight; that seems to be the norm these days, and it's quite frankly atrocious. It's a real shame this auction farce continues even overseas, because it's not furthering the medium, but rather, perpetuating its obscuration, and taking up valuble space in the news that could be filled by articles arguing why comics have to make the shift to paperback/hardcover instead of pamphlets or issues of an anthology. How much longer will this absurdity continue even in Europe?

What Alan Moore says about Frank Miller and the industry

Alan Moore, having long had little to do with the comics medium for years already, was interviewed by the UK Observer, and has rather unsurprisingly unflattering words to say about Frank Miller. But first:

You are ‘divorced’ from your earlier works like Watchmen and V for Vendetta, but they are powerfully predictive, rather than histories.

They were never meant to be predictive. Friends want me to write something nice. Why do I have to keep doing these terrible dystopian stories that then actually happen?

Well if he realizes why, more importantly, apocalyptic stories only built upon pessimism can be discouraging when you hammer away at them with no brighter side to balance, at least that's something. Though it doesn't excuse that he's such a leftist, and unfortunately, as the following suggests, he hasn't risen above this in real life:

With the [Guy Fawkes] mask from V for Vendetta, you created a symbol for resistance.

It’s one of the works that I’ve disowned, although I am very glad if that mask has been useful to a global protest movement. I was glad that Occupy could find a use for it. I was optimistic when I saw Tunisian school kids wearing it at the start of the Arab Spring, but that replaced the old governments with worse ones and led inexorably to [war in] Syria. If the old world refuses to die, the new world cannot be born.

What do you mean by ‘the old world’?

The ferocity of the rightwing push that we’ve seen over the last 10 years. I can’t really attribute that to anything other than a desperate sense that they and their politics have no part in the future.

What a groaner. He just won't let go of the whole notion on right-wingers could be a problem, but not left-wingers. And does he turn a blind eye to the dangers of Islam, which is consuming the UK even now as we speak? If he believes the "Arab Spring" really had any positive impact in Egypt, reality contradicts that. And how come he denies Watchmen and V for Vendetta were meant to be predictive? Is it because he feels that part alludes to more recent world issues he never actually meant to write a metaphor for? Also appalling is his continued favorability to the Occupy movement, years after the fact, and if that's how he's going to opine, there's no chance he sees anything wrong with how things are really going in Syria now, and the disaster its current autocrat is inflicting upon anybody considered a "kuffar".

How did you get from learning in the library to writing Future Shocks, a sci-fi cartoon strip in 2000 AD?

I asked my friend Steve Moore, who had been working as a comic script writer. He taught me the basics, and I started submitting stories to Doctor Who weekly and 2000 AD. The 2000 AD editor rejected them but liked my style, so gave me Future Shocks. They were a great way to learn how to tell a story. I don’t acknowledge them [now]. The companies have lawyers and will fight you in court until you are destitute. I don’t want to be associated with the comics industry, which is poisonous.

OK… a couple of questions about that poison. The Dark Knight’s Frank Miller, who I think you fell out with…

He’s one of the reasons I’m embarrassed to be connected with the comics industry.

There is one year, 1986, when he releases Batman: The Dark Knight Returns, you release Watchmen, and it changes comics for ever. He’s now worth $45m.

I’m aware of this. Comics are a wonderful medium but the industry is corrupt. One of the reasons I disowned that work is because it is owned by DC Comics. They can give it to any writer. There was a TV series called Watchmen and my only connection with that was receiving a parcel with a powder blue barbecue apron bearing the hydrogen symbol and a letter that began, “Mr. Moore, I am one of the bastards currently destroying Watchmen…” I wrote back a brief letter, saying that this work has been stolen from me so, as far as I’m concerned, it is unauthorised.

Okay, so he's seriously discouraged based on his experiences with a company that came to rip off its contributors more than once, recalling how Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster were at one point being short-changed by DC on Superman until they went public about it in the mid-70s. A big difference is that, as the creators of the first prominent superhero, they had some backing in their time, including the late artist Neil Adams IIRC (but who knows if they'd find it now?), while Moore, by contrast, didn't find anything of the sort, if at all. And I guess he resents that, but again, his leftism is making it difficult to care.

As for his beef with Miller, I assume it's because Miller by contrast went on to work in films to some extent, even though in the end, Miller didn't have much more success than any adaptations of Moore's work did, recalling the League of Extraordinary Gentlemen and Watchmen films were disasters, and so too was V for Vendetta, IIRC.

Screen Rant addressed this in turn, and they unshockingly take Moore's side regardless of where Miller's been going lately, telling that:

However, that friendship was already seemingly over by 2011, when Moore was harshly critical of Miller's public comments about the Occupy protest movement in an interview. Both before and after that, Moore has criticized what he considers the "misogynistic," "homophobic," and "fascist" overtones of Miller's work. Alan Moore clearly came to dislike Miller's later comics, like Sin City and 300, but the root of the issue, on and off the page, is political.

[...] Frank Miller is frequently described as a conservative, though he disavows that label himself. Meanwhile, Alan Moore is a self-avowed anarchist and magician. But one thing they share is how much their personalities, and their ideologies, drive what they do on the page. Which makes their creative and political differences indistinguishable. Then add a professional layer to that: Miller embraced the comics industry, while Moore forsaked it.

Yes, for nearly a decade, Miller's been doing everything he can to back away from any such labeling, even going so far in his recent documentary to say he's sorry for attacking the Occupy movement. Assuming Moore knows this, it just shows that the whole notion he's going to forgive and forget so easily is exaggerated. For if the Observer interview is any suggestion, he won't change his mind anytime soon.

Anyway, now that DC owner Warner Brothers has come under the same ownership as Paramount, one could wonder, will they provide Moore with compensation, if he really deserves it? And given that the mogul who owns both is pro-Donald Trump, one can validly wonder if Moore will even accept any offered? If not, what was his whole rant about in the first place? All I know is that it's just too bad Moore has to be such a far-leftist, and it makes it hard to credit much of his resume outside of a handful of items.

Star Wars' leading actor continues to taint the franchise with his far-left rants

John Nolte at Breitbart addressed the recent anguish Star Wars veteran Mark Hamill caused by writing a social media post wishing ill to Donald Trump:

The Disney Grooming Syndicate’s Star Wars star Mark Hamill has not only lost his humanity, but he’s also been exposed as a bald-faced liar.

Earlier this week, and just a few days after hanging out with former President Barry Obama, Hamill took to his stupid Bluesky account to publish a photo of a dead President Trump with the caption “If Only.”

On the tombstone, the date of death is 2024, with the obvious implication being “if only” he had died before being reelected in a landslide in 2024. You can also assume quite reasonably that Hamill wishes that the assassination attempt in Butler, Pennsylvania, in the summer of 2024 had been successful.

Grim stuff. But when you allow your politics to strip away your humanity, this is how your mind warps.

Naturally, Democrats ignored Hamill’s assassination porn, and the far-left entertainment media downplayed it, but Hamill eventually deleted the post.

Then, on Thursday, he only kind of apologized, but did so by lying about his original post: “Accurate Edit for Clarity: ‘He should live long enough to… be held accountable for his… crimes.’ Actually, I was wishing him the opposite of dead, but apologize if you found the image inappropriate.”

Liar. Hamill was not “wishing him the opposite of dead.”

There was no contradiction in the original post. Hamill expressed his disappointment that Trump was not dead (“If Only”) and then went on to basically say that, since he is sadly still living, I wish all these horrors upon him.

Let's also recall Hamill did voice acting for the Joker during the mid-90s in the Batman Animated Series franchise. Seriously, he is such a sorry case, and it'll be very hard watching the SW franchise at this point when you realize how awful its original star is in his world view. It's also why some people might not be too disappointed Kathleen Kennedy turned the franchise to wokeness, because what good is something where the star of the show makes such heinous statements about real life politicians?

Hamill really crossed the line this time, and while I'd like to think maybe it'd be better reading the comics adapted from SW at this point, even that's not going to be easy.

New cartoon film based on Orwell's Animal Farm succumbs to anti-conservative propaganda

Mark Tapson at Front Page reviewed a new cartoon movie adapted from George Orwell's Animal Farm, and what a shock, it's sadly an anti-Trump metaphor:

You will recall that the fable centers on animals who revolt against their farmer master, take over the farm, set out to fashion a collectivist utopia in which “All animals are equal,” and ultimately succumb to the same fate to which all collectivist endeavors lead: all wealth concentrated in the hands of a few while the rest starve and chafe under an abuse of authoritarian power.

But while the novella may have universal themes about power, totalitarianism, and hypocrisy, Orwell’s specific target was the Stalinist regime in Russia. A socialist himself, Orwell nevertheless recognized and spoke out against the horrors of totalitarianism.

This animated version was directed by actor Andy Serkis – best-known for his role as Gollum in The Lord of the Rings trilogy – who dreamed of giving the tale an updated spin for a new generation. He insists that his take is politically fair and balanced: “We aimed to tell this story examining contemporary themes and references without being in any way partisan,” he told journalists. “Absolute power corrupts absolutely, no matter who is in charge.”

This is pure misdirection. Did anyone think a mainstream Hollywood film, which this is, would miss an opportunity to snipe at Trump and capitalism? Andy Serkis gave away the game when he showed up on the red carpet at the film’s premiere sporting a red MAGA cap whose slogan was changed to read, “Make Animal Farm Fiction Again” – clearly signaling that he believes we are currently living under an authoritarian regime led by capitalist icon Donald Trump.

And he introduces a character not in the original story: the ruthlessly greedy billionaire Freida Pilkington (voiced by Glenn “Fatal Attraction” Close) who roars around in a vehicle clearly resembling a Cybertruck – in other words, she is a stand-in for the mega-capitalist the Left loves to hate, Elon Musk.

Pilkington wants the animals’ farm, so she manipulates the pig leader Napoleon (who represented Stalin in the novella), whose own greed makes him an easy mark. But in Orwell’s version, the ruthless lust for power is the key danger. Greed is not the issue – it is a consequence of unchecked power, yes, but not a central theme, although under collectivist regimes, those in power always live like kings. Serkis, USA Today notes, instead “gravitated toward themes of capitalism, wealth and overconsumption.”

Then there is the hopeful ending in which the animals still believe in the power of collective action for a better future, which runs against the grain of Orwell’s chilling final line about the animals having essentially become indistinguishable from corrupt humans. USA Today sees the movie’s ending as giving viewers “closure,” but in fact it dulls the impact of Orwell’s warning and leaves us feeling not even entertained, much less inspired. It doesn’t help that the incongruous pratfalls and fart jokes simply don’t work.

Well this is bad alright. But also appalling and stupefying is who distributed it:

The baffling thing is that the film is distributed by the pro-Christian, pro-capitalist Angel Studios. If this adaptation were faithful to Orwell’s original vision, Angel’s connection would be understandable. But why would Angel want a clunky, anti-capitalist dud in its repertoire? One social media user put forward this plausible theory: “What Angel gets out of distributing this terrible movie with an all-star cast is that it will break a taboo among mainstream Hollywood figures against working on Angel-produced projects.” If so, this would be a betrayal of Angel’s loyal, Hollywood-despising core audience, and a decision that will likely backfire.

Put another way, they sold out, all because it's such a big deal to be accepted by the Hollywood leftist mainstream. I read the original novella years ago, and IMO, it's all that's needed. Orwell's book didn't need to be adapted to screen, let alone animation, and certainly not with such pretentious people overseeing the production.

The film's amazingly gotten a poor reception, as John Nolte at Breitbart notes, even from leftists, and it's thudded at the box office. Making matters worse is what one of the actors in the film wants in real life, which doesn't help the film's PR any more than Pedro Pascal did the latest Fantastic Four movie when he engaged in political rhetoric. Unfortunately, if recent conduct in Hollywood is any suggestion, neither director Serkis nor the studios involved will learn serious lessons from the catastrophe their political obsessions resulted in, and we could be seeing more of the same in the coming years.